usenet weirdness

Geometric algebras for mechanics or E&M are plenty successful.

There's Hestenes who wrote classical mechanics and Baylis who wrote classical E&M in hypercomplex numbers.

There's Lounesto with "triality is quadratic".

"Finding" the Majorana particle is simply enough after the Majorana spinor, that's more than less as simply an account as "Wick rotation".

I enjoy Lounesto, I spoke with him on several occasions. He has an Erdos number of 3.

It would be cool if my simple enquiry reaches 1000 followup posts.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Well, in looking at these kinds of things I even got to thinking about an "original" analysis about the identity line as identity dimension.

When convolution is introduced then that the convolution of functions is given its own operator or "star", about the composition of functions "under convolution", about the involution and convolution, besides being used in the regular course in the checklist of things to try in solving differential equations, and besides the usual sort of placement in the addressal of integral equations, it's quite thoroughly its own "setting", about what it can make of boundedness and compactness and about the symmetry and reflection.

The "original analysis" or "identity dimension" is its own sort of account, since it has "higher symmetry" in the usual sense of both inverses and transposes, that the convolutions and transposes (transpositions) make for also the "hypergeometric" where the regular singular points are: 0, 1, and infinity.

Yeah I was studying a second course in differential analysis live in 'Descriptive Differential Dynamics" podcasts then I arrived at "original analysis" after finding that the first course in differential analysis had skipped the fundamentals of integral analysis.

The complex analysis after the deMoivre then the Euler identity then about the Gaussian branch as the principal branch, has a number of things that people naturally think would be so with the superimposition of R^2 and C in their diagram, that are not necessarily so.

For example, for deMoivre there's that much like boundedness, it also has an orientation, since small-angle approximation depends on always crossing the horizontal and the vertical bounds. Then the Euler identity has it so that the reasoning of e^ (i pi) = -1, imagines an Archimedean spiral, yet adding that to classical constructions, is its own construction, or about "squaring the circle", not that there's anything wrong with that, and the Archimedean spiral added to classical constructions the compass and edge makes for both "circle-squaring" and "cubing squares" geometrically, it's though so that mostly as an account of Euler's telescoping series, that they've implicitly added another bound, another boundedness, more boundary conditions, and otherwise it lives in a box. Then Gauss about the principal branch of complex numbers' division, has that the definition of division of complex numbers is naturally multi-valued, so it's sort of like that using complex numbers to fill the roots of real numbers, and there are other ways of looking at filling the roots of real numbers, that making complex numbers, then has that the operation of division makes its own new "field" of roots of complex numbers as they may be, that are simply ignored.

So, these are among reasons why "complex analyticity" doesn't always suffice for "real analyticity", which is all anybody really cares when all measurements and observations are eventually "real-valued", even if they're said to live in Hilbert space, since the physical interpretation is according to the complex diagram superimposing R^2 and C.

While that's so, the usual account of Hilbert space makes for writing lots of relations in e and pi, it's just not always correct to say they hold, exist, or even let out.

With eventually making for triangle-inequality and about the metric and norm, since that's entirely central in the developments of the definitions and derivations of the usual account of linear and vector relation, in physics, then, for examples, the convolutive setting and with Haar, or about the original analysis and the identity dimension and the complex-complex left-right diagram with branches of complex division, make their own reasons when in the actual they are central, to the real analytical character under analysis.

"Cube doubling", rather, than "cubing squares". There's Nicomachus theorem and the like if you've ever discovered that before.

This is before even getting into the independence of arithmetic in the laws of large numbers, or about "The Atlas of Mathematical Independence", and more and real mathematics of continuity and infinity about convergence and emergence in the standard and non-standard, those above are standard derivations and totally bog-standard and implicit in anybody's stack who says anything about "complex numbers" beyond defining the existence of an even root of -1 that lives in a vector space and as of a vector field.

It's convenient when it's cumulative, yet when unravelling the branches and the boxes, it makes a deconstructive account that to be constructivist and constructionist or structuralist again, must make for rebuilding all the fundamental theorems again to then claim to obtain as "arithmetizations", "algebraizations", and, "geometrizations".

For example, "convolutivizations".

Here there's a usual account of continuity in geometry as for a "spiral space-filling curve" as for Hilbert's postulate of continuity that's a restatement of Leibnitz' postulate of perfection for the gapless-ness in point-set topologies, the "line-drawing" of "iota-values", for the real analytical character of infinitesimals as standard among definitions of continuous domains, like line-reals, field-reals, and signal-reals.

The "boxing" and "branching" then, and the "un-boxing" and "un-branching", is about usual notions of that: singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity theory.

So, ideas like the multi-valued results of division of complex numbers, exist as simply as does negative even roots of positive numbers or imaginary even roots of real numbers.

Then, setting up their real analytical character is often in a convolutional setting, about various diagrams relating spaces of numbers, like the Argand or Wessel plane, or here for example the identity dimension in quadrant 1 and folding out complex-complex left-right division in quadrants to the side.

It's not so much that they didn't already have one, as they forgot where they left it.

Yet, as well, these sorts of things are readily discovered independently.

Yes. The grapes hang too high, and they are probably sour anyway.

No point in trying,

Jan

Not really testing, just a demonstration experiment. The effects were known already from flying atomic clocks on planes for the purpose of synchronising clocks between standards laboratories,

Jan

OK, OK, you are behaving like just another crackpot who can't bring himself to admit that his pet idea is wrong.

Enough said,

Jan

And speaking of geometry - it's always good to remind that your bunch of idiots has announced 2000 years of geometry (with hundreds of proofs) false, because it didn't want to fit the mad postulates of your idiot guru.

Coriolis and the tidal is its own sort of problem for usual accounts.

Coriolis, Compton, Cerenkov, Casimir, own sorts of problems for usual accounts.

Blame it on the rain.

Since a very few people - if any - are smart enough to understand our universe, we don't need many trying.

On the other hand, the world needs a lot of engineers.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Geometry on non-planar surfaces has been around for a while.

Geographers had to get into spherical geometry early on, and hyperbolic geometry wasn't far behind.

Whoever forbade them didn't have the power to enforce their decision.

GPS hardware implements the corrections. Aesthetics may give you good looking hardware, but customers want hardware that works.

As before, the idiot here you. Clocks in different locations indicate predictably different times, and time keeping systems have to (and do) rationalise these differences by adding in the appropriate corrections.

That you don't know what you are talking about. Our satellite clocks are known to be satellite clocks and their front panels display a time which has been corrected for the known values of Lonrentz time dilation and gravitational time dilation.

It's not my pet idea. It's just difficult for me to imagine that there won't be tides on the sun, or that the tidal flows will be non-dissipative. It's easy to imagine that they won't be significant. A turbulent plasma threaded by magnetic fields is not going to behave in a way that is going to be easy to analyse.

Sure. You want to dismiss me as crank. Sci.physics.relativity has enough cranks to make it a plausible strategy, and I've been exploiting it myself, but I'm probably not enough of a crank for it to work.

Oh, really? Did geographers announced that Pythagorean theorem is really false, against more than 100 independent proofs?

No, sorry, they didn't. Their spherical geometry is a part of Euclid's. Neither did Riemann. He only was only considering the hypothesis it is false; stupid, sure, but it was your idiot guru who announced it really is.

And obedient doggies soon found both "confirmations" and that Euclid's math was always under suspect by everyone.

Right. Common sense has been warning the idiot.

And brainwashed morons wave their arms and scream they came from The S*it. How so? The chief S*it postulate is that every frame should be ruled by the same rules. How it implies that clocks in a satellite frame should have 9 192 631 774 divider while Earth clocks have 9 192 631 770?

I will tell you: it's the same way how "love your neighbor" postulate implies "let's burn those fucken heretics at the stake! All of them!!".

Numbers, please. When a clock in GPS ground base is indicating t = 2026-03-11 13:00:00.000000000000 - what is t', the indication of a satellite clock?

and time keeping systems have to (and do)

Time is WHAT CLOCKS INDICATE. That's idiot's own definition. When a clock in GPS ground base is indicating t = 2026-03-11 13:00:00.000000000000

- what is t', the indication of a satellite clock?

Clock error is a classical phenomenon, well known to Galileo, Newton and any ordinary 12 years old child. What is the difference between a clock error and your "time dilation"? In both cases clocks tend to desynchronize... when it's error we correct them,when it's dilation we say "Great! Our clocks desynchronize! Praise our beloved guru who predicted that!!" but we don't correct it, if we correct it's error, sorry.

and

Similar opinions were published in the 1890s.

We've never needed many theoretical physicists, which is just as well. That sort of talent is thin on the ground.

They do pop up from time to time, and study problems that strike them as interesting. They've hit a few jackpots in recent years, and the next generation may be just as lucky.

People who think that we know all that we need to know are more numerous, and harder to put to use.

Some, like Donald J. Trump, get into jobs where their absence of talent creates real problems.